By: bring_it_on
- 17th January 2015 at 13:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the other thing is that by putting the UCLASS with ISR, you're saying its an ISR asset, completely different from the F-35
if you put it with the attack wings, you're saying active combat pilots will be reduced to playing Hawx, and more importantly you're saying it might take over roles from the F-35. then you're suddenly getting in the way of a $300 billion program
by hiding with the ISR wing, the UCLASS is a wolf in sheep's skin. and probably the only way for it to reach operational status alive
The USN is still debating whether to up_arm the UCLASS and seek a more technically challenging vehicle. While it is frustrating, for I myself agree with some of what Bob Work has said on the matter, I cannot fault the USN for sticking to a long range ISR vehicle with light strike for starters. Given that the X_47 vehicle had a 3-4 year delay in accomplishing its testing and the fact that USN has already lost about a year from its planned IOC one would be sympathetic to them if they seek a relatively low risk solution for their 6- Billion dollar program. In fact, if one took the RQ-180 news stories seriously one could really come up with why the USN is insisting on the UCLASS for ISR since much of that capability form a sensor and integration point of view is/was most likely validated with that program anyhow. They could then in the post 2020's begin to work on version 2 and version 3 of the program just as the USAF went about upsizing their Unmanned aircraft in capability. Putting the UCLASS in the ISR net along with the E-2 is a strong indication that the USN would successfully hold on to its own plans of fielding a primarily ISR driven vehicle with light strike.
There is no one other than you that thinks that the USN can replace the F-35C with the UCLASS therefore the UCLASS is absolutely no threat to the F-35 acquisition program given that they need a minimum number of new fighters to replace the outgoing F/A-18's by a certain point in time. What the USN seems to be avoiding is to go crazy with the UCLASS requirement and enter into a 10-15 billion dollar program, only to have it go out of control (which high risk programs have a tendency to do) and jeopardize their FA-XX program which they also need by a certain point in time to replace the Super Hornet, unless they volunteer to remain an F-35 only force well into the 2050's (which they won't agree to). Put that with their ship building plans, which suggest a gap between their goal and their funds - one can easily understand why they do not want to spend a whole lot of money on the UCLASS in a relatively short amount of time through sequestration in order to get a mini - unmanned B-2. A time for that vehicle would no doubt come, but not through a program that sees a bulk of its investments/development in a sequestered budget where the Navy is trying desperately to meet its shipbuilding targets.
By: Tango III
- 17th January 2015 at 15:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The German military intends to revive its controversial Euro Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle program after it was canceled in 2013 due to spiraling costs and airworthiness issues.
By: Sanem
- 17th January 2015 at 23:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no one other than you that thinks that the USN can replace the F-35C with the UCLASS therefore the UCLASS is absolutely no threat to the F-35 acquisition program given that they need a minimum number of new fighters to replace the outgoing F/A-18's by a certain point in time.
there are plenty of people who believe this, many high ranking within the USN, who've had the F-35 forced upon them and know it will not satisfy their needs
this bureaucratic battle between the services has been going on for ages, and many a good idea and more Dollars have been wasted because of it. as with its predecessors, the F-35 is here to promise all and deliver little, at much inflated cost and in much lower numbers (F-111, F-22, F-35, B-2... to name but a few recent examples)
the UCLASS will have the potential to fly out, detect and kill stuff, and as such it is a direct threat to the F-35's budgets. for most realistic missions you don't need the F-35, and you don't want the F-35, when you'll be able to field multiple long range expendable UCLASS's with the latest plug-in sensors that were not designed 20 years before
the forces at play here know this, which is why the USN is struggling to get requirements for the UCLASS right. the F-35s defenders want to keep it small, so it can't carry as much weapons as the F-35 (a moot point in today's world of miniature weapons) or make it too big and complicated so it'll fail (I'm guessing that's what the USN did to the F-35)
so the USN has to balance off actual capability with perceived capability, in an effort to keep the program alive and able to replace the F-35 when and if needed, without being perceived to do so
By: Hotshot
- 18th January 2015 at 08:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder to what extent the UCLASS could fill some of the roles of the hawkeye. The hawkeye is not stealthy at all so it would be detected from very far and would give away the approximate location of the carrier group.
A stealthy UCLASS would also have the capability of entering enemy airspace with a strike package and give 360 degrees situational awareness during the attack.
Wouldn't it make sense for the USN to reduce the number of E-2s and focus more on a stealthy design for the UCLASS?
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 18th January 2015 at 09:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
makes no difference, what is seen first of the E-2 is the emission, long, long before E-2 is seen,
stealth means nothing if you have to emit.
By: bring_it_on
- 18th January 2015 at 14:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
makes no difference, what is seen first of the E-2 is the emission, long, long before E-2 is seen,
stealth means nothing if you have to emit.
As DJC mentioned, one big role of the E-2 is to listen, and this is only possibly in certain areas if you practice EMCON or do not emit at all. You do not emit irresponsibly and give away the likely location of a CVN.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 18th January 2015 at 16:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
for listening, low rcs UAV makes perfect sense,
anyway not having the aew active is also risky biz,
once within striking range, i'd rather have the E-2 active
By: Tango III
- 27th January 2015 at 19:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UK’s primary air traffic management provider has signed a safety agreement with an unmanned air vehicle trade association to promote the safe use of small UAVs in UK airspace.
By: Tango III
- 27th January 2015 at 19:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Secret Service is working on measures to neutralize future drone endeavors on the White House grounds. Currently, the agency has shown it cannot deal with small flying objects penetrating into the secured territory.
By: Tango III
- 29th January 2015 at 17:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The French government and its ANR national research agency are looking for technology that would be used to prevent unmanned air vehicles flying over nuclear facilities, bids for which need to be submitted by 2 February.
By: Tango III
- 31st January 2015 at 21:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Photographs emerged on social media websites on 27 January showing a CASC CH-3 (or improved CH-3A) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that had purportedly crashed in the northeastern Nigerian state of Borno.
I got this feeling as well, but after speaking to a few folks who are following it very very closely I got the impression that neither side is willing to give in so they have decided to duel it out some more. Obviously the Navy wants something that it can afford to develop and procure without jeopardizing other programs while others (including Bob Work) want it to be a broader player in overall force projection.
By: bring_it_on
- 3rd February 2015 at 15:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not only that, if this thing begins to compete with R&D funding for things like EMRG, lasers etc the USN is likely to support those over the UCLASS. This may be important if the larger, more capable and stealthy vehicle comes out of the review. You could very easily double the project cost form 6 to 12 Billion if you keep adding capability. They may just keep delaying it until the next administration and have it decide on the increase in spending.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 17th January 2015 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USN is still debating whether to up_arm the UCLASS and seek a more technically challenging vehicle. While it is frustrating, for I myself agree with some of what Bob Work has said on the matter, I cannot fault the USN for sticking to a long range ISR vehicle with light strike for starters. Given that the X_47 vehicle had a 3-4 year delay in accomplishing its testing and the fact that USN has already lost about a year from its planned IOC one would be sympathetic to them if they seek a relatively low risk solution for their 6- Billion dollar program. In fact, if one took the RQ-180 news stories seriously one could really come up with why the USN is insisting on the UCLASS for ISR since much of that capability form a sensor and integration point of view is/was most likely validated with that program anyhow. They could then in the post 2020's begin to work on version 2 and version 3 of the program just as the USAF went about upsizing their Unmanned aircraft in capability. Putting the UCLASS in the ISR net along with the E-2 is a strong indication that the USN would successfully hold on to its own plans of fielding a primarily ISR driven vehicle with light strike.
There is no one other than you that thinks that the USN can replace the F-35C with the UCLASS therefore the UCLASS is absolutely no threat to the F-35 acquisition program given that they need a minimum number of new fighters to replace the outgoing F/A-18's by a certain point in time. What the USN seems to be avoiding is to go crazy with the UCLASS requirement and enter into a 10-15 billion dollar program, only to have it go out of control (which high risk programs have a tendency to do) and jeopardize their FA-XX program which they also need by a certain point in time to replace the Super Hornet, unless they volunteer to remain an F-35 only force well into the 2050's (which they won't agree to). Put that with their ship building plans, which suggest a gap between their goal and their funds - one can easily understand why they do not want to spend a whole lot of money on the UCLASS in a relatively short amount of time through sequestration in order to get a mini - unmanned B-2. A time for that vehicle would no doubt come, but not through a program that sees a bulk of its investments/development in a sequestered budget where the Navy is trying desperately to meet its shipbuilding targets.
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 17th January 2015 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The German military intends to revive its controversial Euro Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle program after it was canceled in 2013 due to spiraling costs and airworthiness issues.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/isr/2015/01/16/germany-euro-hawk-uas-/21799109/
Posts: 593
By: Sanem - 17th January 2015 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there are plenty of people who believe this, many high ranking within the USN, who've had the F-35 forced upon them and know it will not satisfy their needs
this bureaucratic battle between the services has been going on for ages, and many a good idea and more Dollars have been wasted because of it. as with its predecessors, the F-35 is here to promise all and deliver little, at much inflated cost and in much lower numbers (F-111, F-22, F-35, B-2... to name but a few recent examples)
the UCLASS will have the potential to fly out, detect and kill stuff, and as such it is a direct threat to the F-35's budgets. for most realistic missions you don't need the F-35, and you don't want the F-35, when you'll be able to field multiple long range expendable UCLASS's with the latest plug-in sensors that were not designed 20 years before
the forces at play here know this, which is why the USN is struggling to get requirements for the UCLASS right. the F-35s defenders want to keep it small, so it can't carry as much weapons as the F-35 (a moot point in today's world of miniature weapons) or make it too big and complicated so it'll fail (I'm guessing that's what the USN did to the F-35)
so the USN has to balance off actual capability with perceived capability, in an effort to keep the program alive and able to replace the F-35 when and if needed, without being perceived to do so
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 18th January 2015 at 08:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder to what extent the UCLASS could fill some of the roles of the hawkeye. The hawkeye is not stealthy at all so it would be detected from very far and would give away the approximate location of the carrier group.
A stealthy UCLASS would also have the capability of entering enemy airspace with a strike package and give 360 degrees situational awareness during the attack.
Wouldn't it make sense for the USN to reduce the number of E-2s and focus more on a stealthy design for the UCLASS?
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 18th January 2015 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
makes no difference, what is seen first of the E-2 is the emission, long, long before E-2 is seen,
stealth means nothing if you have to emit.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 18th January 2015 at 09:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have noted that the UK is talking up the reconnaissance potential of the F35B, so this is a similar approach I suppose.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 18th January 2015 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, that's the question, can the EASA radar use LPI modes to detect targets at long range.
The E-2 has a very large RCS, so probably it will be detected by any large surface active radar in LOS.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 18th January 2015 at 14:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As DJC mentioned, one big role of the E-2 is to listen, and this is only possibly in certain areas if you practice EMCON or do not emit at all. You do not emit irresponsibly and give away the likely location of a CVN.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 18th January 2015 at 16:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
for listening, low rcs UAV makes perfect sense,
anyway not having the aew active is also risky biz,
once within striking range, i'd rather have the E-2 active
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 21st January 2015 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Airbus thinks Tanan is good for the UK:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-touts-tanan-uav39s-uk-potential-408126/
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st January 2015 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A bit bigger than the Camcopter S-100 or SAAB Skeldar, but in the same class.
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 27th January 2015 at 19:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UK’s primary air traffic management provider has signed a safety agreement with an unmanned air vehicle trade association to promote the safe use of small UAVs in UK airspace.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nats-and-arpas-uk-form-uav-safety-partnership-408314/
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 27th January 2015 at 19:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Secret Service is working on measures to neutralize future drone endeavors on the White House grounds. Currently, the agency has shown it cannot deal with small flying objects penetrating into the secured territory.
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150127/1017411533.html
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 29th January 2015 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The French government and its ANR national research agency are looking for technology that would be used to prevent unmanned air vehicles flying over nuclear facilities, bids for which need to be submitted by 2 February.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/france-looks-to-deter-uav-flights-over-nuclear-sites-408434/
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 31st January 2015 at 21:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Photographs emerged on social media websites on 27 January showing a CASC CH-3 (or improved CH-3A) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that had purportedly crashed in the northeastern Nigerian state of Borno.
http://www.janes.com/article/48373/suspected-nigerian-ch-3-uav-crashes
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 3rd February 2015 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, do we think UCLASS as we know it is dead?
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/02/navy-pushes-uclass-fielding-date-air-segment-request-proposal
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 3rd February 2015 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I got this feeling as well, but after speaking to a few folks who are following it very very closely I got the impression that neither side is willing to give in so they have decided to duel it out some more. Obviously the Navy wants something that it can afford to develop and procure without jeopardizing other programs while others (including Bob Work) want it to be a broader player in overall force projection.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 3rd February 2015 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USN is throwing money at too many projects: LCS, P-8, F-35, MH-53K, DDG-1000, and a new missile sub. Something has to fall off the table, budget-wise.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 3rd February 2015 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not only that, if this thing begins to compete with R&D funding for things like EMRG, lasers etc the USN is likely to support those over the UCLASS. This may be important if the larger, more capable and stealthy vehicle comes out of the review. You could very easily double the project cost form 6 to 12 Billion if you keep adding capability. They may just keep delaying it until the next administration and have it decide on the increase in spending.
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 3rd February 2015 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Turkish Aerospace Industries has begun flight testing of the Block B variant of its Anka medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicle.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/upgraded-anka-carries-out-maiden-flight-408567/